From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:18:33 +0300 Message-ID: <20100527171833.GD9625@nokia.com> References: <20100526142430.327ccbc4@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526141612.3e2e0443@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527003943.07c17f85@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527155201.GA31937@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527171615.15a1fd3d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527161943.GA32764@srcf.ucam.org> Reply-To: felipe.balbi@nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: ext Thomas Gleixner Cc: Matthew Garrett , Alan Cox , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Florian Mickler , Vitaly Wool , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , "Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org" , "Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0200, ext Thomas Gleixner wrote: >Opportunistic suspend is just a deep idle state, nothing else. If the >overall QoS requirements allow to enter that deep idle state then the >kernel goes there. Same decision as for all other idle states. You >don't need any user space blocker for this decision, just sensible QoS >information. agree completely with you. Adding virtual differences between power states is a bad idea and causes unnecessary complication to the system. If we have a generic way of describing desired latencies (irq, wakeup, throughput, whatever), then the kernel should decide what's the best power state for the current situation. -- balbi DefectiveByDesign.org